You might like to address your corrections to the supreme court, as they're citing the 1972 Value-Added Tax act verbatim; https://courts.ie/acc/alfresco/fad4067

You might like to address your corrections to the supreme court, as they're citing the 1972 Value-Added Tax act verbatim; https://courts.ie/acc/alfresco/fad40678-a172-44c7-9f84-66f8c102c0f0/2020_IESC_60%20(Unapproved).pdf/pdf#view=fitH https://courts.ie/acc/alfresco/fad40678-a172-44c7-9f84-66f8c... It appears the Finance Act doesn't replace the Value-Added Tax act; a large part of the case verbiage came down to the VAT Act citing "food or drink" vs and the Finance Act citing "food and drink". I believe both acts implement EU directives so the same exception had to be carved into each; one doesn't replace the other. It's actually a fairly interesting judgement to read. It's almost entirely either balancing one act against another, or nitpicking the grammatical constructs towards the principle of doubtful penalisation. I especially liked the detours into whether hot tea and cold tea are the same thing, and whether tea and coffee can be said to have been cooked. Whether bread is bread is a relatively small part of the argument, with the percentages only being relevant to 2 points of the 99 (and it wasn't disputed, they were rather disputing the legal construct of a sandwich. I kid ye not.) "This seems a very cumbersome and unnatural description of a hot meatball sandwich."